Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PQfformat() and Composite Formatted Results

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Volkan YAZICI <yazicivo(at)ttnet(dot)net(dot)tr>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PQfformat() and Composite Formatted Results
Date: 2006-02-04 02:25:21
Message-ID: 15245.1139019921@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-interfaces
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> There is 0 chance that this will be applied, because
>> 
>>> Therefore, it breaks compatibility with the existing PQ*Params() and
>>> PQ*Prepared() functions. (Use at your own risk.)

> OK, patch removed, but you stated in email:
>> On Dec 30 06:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's not a protocol restriction, it's a libpq restriction made in the
> name of keeping the API from getting too unwieldy.  We could add more
> entry points with different parameter lists to address this.  I have
> a feeling that refactoring the API of the query functions entirely
> might be a better idea, though.

> so I thought you were saying that we need to just pick new function
> names or something.

I didn't say we couldn't do something involving new function names;
I said *this* patch isn't acceptable ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-02-04 02:33:18
Subject: Re: PQfformat() and Composite Formatted Results
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-02-04 00:35:58
Subject: Re: PQfformat() and Composite Formatted Results

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group